fatboy
Administrator
Ok, we have a new developement where the anchor store is also installing the fueling station, without restrooms.
It was identified at plan review that the travel distance for the fueling station kiosk to the store was over 500', that they need to provide restrooms at the liosk, or move it closer, to comply with 2904.2.1.
They have provided a drawing that shows the travel distance to be 504', from the door of the kiosk, to a mid-point in a foyer between the men's and womens restroom doors. They consider this to be the travel distance.
I have maintained that the "path of travel" was from where one may be in the kiosk, to the most remote fixture in the store that may be need to be used, along a logical path. To the most remote fixture in either restroom it is another 24'. The kiosk interior, probably another 10' to the most remote point, so we're pushing 540'.
The applicant is asking me to allow this to happen, based on future platted pad sites that would easily make the 500'. I'm still saying no, but am curious if I'm just being one of those a$$hole officials that is being non-friendly to developement, by not ignoring that silly 500' "shall not exceed" prescriptive requirement.
What say ya'll?
It was identified at plan review that the travel distance for the fueling station kiosk to the store was over 500', that they need to provide restrooms at the liosk, or move it closer, to comply with 2904.2.1.
They have provided a drawing that shows the travel distance to be 504', from the door of the kiosk, to a mid-point in a foyer between the men's and womens restroom doors. They consider this to be the travel distance.
I have maintained that the "path of travel" was from where one may be in the kiosk, to the most remote fixture in the store that may be need to be used, along a logical path. To the most remote fixture in either restroom it is another 24'. The kiosk interior, probably another 10' to the most remote point, so we're pushing 540'.
The applicant is asking me to allow this to happen, based on future platted pad sites that would easily make the 500'. I'm still saying no, but am curious if I'm just being one of those a$$hole officials that is being non-friendly to developement, by not ignoring that silly 500' "shall not exceed" prescriptive requirement.
What say ya'll?